I’ve been both astonished and amused at your success. I think you have taken some courageous steps as a media personality, such as leaving the cesspool of the American northeast to strike your own media brand in Texas. You’ve established your own independent media outlet. You have plumbed history in a way for most folks that they weren’t accustomed to in school. This, in spite of your recent admiration for the historical quack and Evanjellyfish, David Barton who makes Michael Bellesiles look like a model historian.
You didn’t always arrive at the right conclusions, but asked important questions.
But now I suspect you have made a faux pas that puts any of your good works in the hazard.
You’ve become the police apologist that every lover of freedom and liberty in America dreads. Frankly, this is morally monstrous on your part because you’re rationalizing the very worst aspect of any government on Earth throughout history; the notion that you must take a bat or worse to anyone who dares to defy or disobey the state and its armed functionaries in ensuring all statist edicts are obeyed no matter how asinine, immoral or ineffective. You endorse the initiation of force against innocents. It’s much like cheer-leading the Cheka in the USSR. “We need to address a few bad apples on both sides of the line.”
The kind of person who buys the dissembling narrative of the thin black and blue line. You’ve gone so far as to call for a national day of prayer to stand up for the “besieged” police forces nationwide. All 19,000 departments, chock-full of unionized armed Leninists whose only loyalty is to the rulers, and whose only task is to be the pointy and bloody end of all laws across the fetid plain. Apparently, they’re a bloated and self-serving government union you can get behind. Next, you will be a champion for the NEA and AFT.
Cops hit, steal and kidnap for a living, by statist fiat. They employ the impossible moral calculus that immoral means will yield moral ends. They advance the absurd notion that the Nuremberg defense will cover everything they do.
The police are the standing army the Anti-Federalists warned us about.
Some cops get killed, everyone loses their minds and the police fill their pants in fear and fury. Yet for every cop killed in the US, thirty civilians perish at their hands.
Thirty to one. Forty one have died from “non-lethal” tasers alone this year. Forty one, almost twice the number of police dead so far in “criminal” encounters on the job. This nearly twice the number of cops fallen at the hands of “criminals”.
Because the cops have stacked up 787 corpses this year alone, as of now; mostly on pretenses that would put normal mundanes in the hazard in the judicial system. Their special status gives them a license to murder at will.
Mind you, I don’t trust the number and think it is low due to non-, under- and mis-reporting by the legal apparatchiks and their cheerleaders in the media. After all, the Feds don’t maintain a database of civilians killed by police. No, that task falls on a British newspaper and a few dedicated individuals nation-wide who try to track this. This certainly doesn’t include the vast gulag (largest per capita on Earth) the US maintains in its many cage systems for human livestock, from the local to the Federal level.
Robert Higgs make the cogent case why good cops are merely a chimera and a mirage.
“The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone’s anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.
We need only consider the following:
(1) A cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
(2) Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
(3) Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.
There are no good cops.”
All malum prohibitum laws that have no victim but the state, and no beneficiary except the government.
The rule of law is a myth, but you think otherwise. You think that there is some magic judicial bullet that always embraces liberty at the expense of government, thanks to the robed government employees who command the heights of the wretched legal enterprise in the US.
For instance, if rule of law works then how do you square the existence of the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, 1939 US v. Miller, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA and all the other firearms prohibitions since then with a clear and unambiguous reading of the Second Amendment by your beloved Constitutional judiciary?
You claim abjectly silly things like the following:
“He played video of Sharpton saying: “We need the Justice Department to step in and take over the policing in this country. In the 20th century they had to fight states’ rights to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases…”
“It’s not about race,” Beck interpreted. “It’s about handing more power to the central government. The DOJ taking over policing — does that sound ridiculous? … The only chance it would ever gain traction is during a crisis. So Al Sharpton travels to Baltimore and cashes in on. the crisis!”
If you don’t think that all policing in the US is de facto and de jure Federalized, you have been asleep at the wheel. Here’s a pop quiz: name a recent case in which the Feds didn’t originate the law. Prohibition works? Illegal vegetation has been the most effective way, since the Feds weaponized it in 1972, to provide all the conditions necessary to make surveillance by the state the vast totalitarian success story it is today. With the Drug War, your beloved government was able to make transparent every human transaction, whether the use of cash or money structuring or using dogs to nullify the Fourth Amendment protections in every encounter with the police.
I could go on but the evidence is all around you but you are blind to it.
You can rationalize away my assumptions all you want but you have no desire to press for smaller government because you embrace, endorse and apparently love the police state otherwise your intellectual sobriety and moral compass would make you reconsider your endorsement of the police in toto.
Your Goebbels-gargling of the police state calls into question not only your present judgment but the entire corpus of history you have championed as a critic of Progressivism when in in truth you are a champion of bigger government and the leviathan state..
Sure, this country seceded from the British Empire for a number of reasons, among which were weapons and ammunition confiscation, obnoxious taxes and regulatory mistreatment of the North American colonists. These same colonials would not have been on Lexington Green if the precursor to police forces at the time, the British Regulars, had not marched out of Boston 19 April 1775 to seize weapons and ammunition among other declared contraband.
Listening to you now, I know you would have been among the King’s most virulent apologists as an unrepentant Loyalist Tory wanting to rain hell on the colonials for daring to rebel against mistreatment by the King’s armed men.
There have been many police apologists in history. The state can’t exist without the power of an armed band at their beck and call to apply the lash and wield the bat against the unwilling and uncooperative. Just try to grok this simple question: Absent police power, how could any man be stripped of his liberty and freedom by government?
Samuel Adams was speaking of you when he said:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
It turns out that you’re simply another government supremacist media fraud like Hannity and Limbaugh and all their confreres on the Left and Right who wish not for freedom, but simply more comfortable manacles and a quiet obeisance to your betters in Mordor on the Potomac.
I can only guess at your motivations; it may as crass as you’re seeking to curry favor so your police encounters will be more favorable . Who knows? But clearly you’ve picked a side.
For you, obedience to government trumps adherence to your moral framework. Otherwise, you may notice that the United States is too big to succeed at anything but tyranny.
Good luck with your unabashed faith in the cops to make you free.
I would say resist but you may consider that gauche in your treasured police state.